Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. The Director General (Investigation and Registration) (the DG) has filed an application under Section 10(a)(iii) read with Section 37 of the MRTP Act, 1969 (the Act for brief) charging the respondents, Energizer India Pvt. Ltd, and Eveready Industries Ltd. with adoption of and indulgence in restrictive trade practices within the meaning of Section 33(1) Sub-clauses (c), (g) and (f) and Section 2(o)(ii) of the Act. The allegations in brief, as mentioned in the DG's application are that respondent No. 1 is engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of alkaline and lithium primary battery systems and has entered into an agreement with respondent No. 2 and pursuant thereto, has appointed respondent No. 2 as a distributor for selling these products in India, Bhutan and Nepal and certain clauses in the above agreement are restrictive in nature and attract the provisions of Section 33(1) of the Act. The clauses which are found to be violative of the aforesaid provisions of the Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : (1990)69CompCas516NULL
1. This enquiry has been instituted on the basis of an application filed by the Director-General of Investigation and Registration under Section 36B(c) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969.2. In its reply to the notice of enquiry, the respondent has, apart from contesting the allegations on merits, challenged the jurisdiction of the Commission to go into the matter and the maintainability of the enquiry. The Commission, therefore, framed the following preliminary issue : -- "Has the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission no jurisdiction to hear and decide the application of the Director-General and is that application not legally maintainable for reasons stated in the preliminary objections contained in the reply of the respondent ?" 3. Arguments on the preliminary issue were heard from time to time and were concluded on August 19, 1988.4. The respondent is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and is carrying on the business of pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : (1987)62CompCas263NULL
1. The respondent is a private limited company engaged in the publication of a periodical Competition Success Review. It was appointed on exclusive "franchises" of Linguaphone Institute Ltd., England for India, Bangladesh and Nepal in respect of their product with effect from January 1, 1984. It inserted an advertisement in the special December issue of Competition Success Review, offering prizes to those persons who would purchase a linguaphone course before December, 1984. According to the gift scheme, the prizes were to be decided by draw of lots. As it appeared to the Commission that by organising the gift scheme, the respondent had indulged in an unfair trade practice as defined under Section 36A(3)(b) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, the present enquiry under Section 36B(d) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act was instituted.2. The respondent, at first, contested the notice of enquiry but later came up with an application under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : (1987)61CompCas353NULL
1. This is an application under Section 36B(c) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, moved by the Director-General of Investigation and Registration (hereinafter referred to as " the applicant ") against M/s. Panama Chemical Works, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as " the respondent "). The enquiry arose from an advertisement which appeared in The Gujarat Samachar, dated February 23, 1986. The respondent is the manufacturer of Painjon tablets. In order to promote the sale of these tablets, the respondent announced a contest offering first prize of Rs. 21,000 in cash or in lieu thereof a world travel air ticket. The second prize is Rs. 5,000 in cash or in lieu thereof one Delhi/Singapore/Delhi air ticket. The third prize is Rs. 2,000 in cash or in lieu thereof one Delhi/Nepal/Delhi air ticket.Besides these three prizes, there are 100 consolation prizes.2. In order to enter the contest, it is required that the contestant should tick mark and complete the sentence ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
1. These are applications by the respondents praying that some of the issues framed in the inquiry by the Commission's order dated the 26th March, 1976, should be treated as preliminary issues and disposed of without taking any evidence, as pure questions of law. It is stated that on a true construction of the provisions of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act and/or the Companies Act, 1956, an arrangement between a holding company and a subsidiary company cannot constitute a restrictive trade practice at all, and that, in any event, an arrangement whereby a holding company siphons off the profits of its subsidiary or reaps the profits of its subsidiary could not, even if the said allegation is true, constitute a restrictive trade practice.It is contended that in the circumstances an inquiry into the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the application by the Registrar of Restrictive Trade Agreements (hereinafter referred to as " the Registrar ") was beyond the juris...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : (1976)46CompCas607NULL
1. This is an application by the Registrar of Restrictive Trade Agreements (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "the Registrar") against M/s. Steel Age Industries Ltd., of Bombay, who are engaged in the manufacture and marketing of steel furniture and certain other equipment. The Registrar alleges that the respondent has appointed distributors at various places in the country and has entered into agreements with them in a standard form. In paragraph 3 of the application he has set out Clauses 8, 10 and 11 of the said agreements.In paragraph 4 he has contended that Clause 8 amounts to full-line forcing, Clause 10 to resale price maintenance and Clause 11 to differential discounts. He contends that these are restrictive trade practices within the definition of that term in Section 2(o) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as " the Act "). He prays that necessary action be taken against the respondent....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Reported in : II(2003)CPJ61MRTP
1. On a complaint received from one Shri Naval Kishore Singh against the respondent i.e. Me Dowell & Company Limited that the respondent has been allowing differential discounts to wholesalers, the Commission directed the Director General (Investigation and Registration) (hereinafter referred to as DG) to investigate into the complaint and to submit its preliminary investigation report. The DG after obtaining information on certain points from the respondent recommended institution of inquiry against the respondent for the reasons given in its PIR filed on 10.12.1997. As per the report, "the respondent has allowed differential incentives by way of credit notes amounting to manipulation of prices imposing unjustified cost on the unfavoured customers which tends to impair competition". The enquiry was recommended under Section 37(1) read with Sections 2(o)(ii) and 33(1)(e) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. A Notice of...
Tag this Judgment!